SSC vs. RACK - what's the difference, and which is preferable?

[Sir_Winston54]

I think this topic may have been visited a couple of years ago, but I don't seem to find it, and maybe some of the folks who have come to the board since then would be interested and/or have some thoughts of their own about the topic.

Historically (say, from 12-15 years ago or so - maybe more), SSC - Safe, Sane, Consensual - was the "standard" for much of the BDSM community. It was/is defined in a large number of places, including Vancouver Leather's site, as

SSC (Safe, Sane and Consensual) is a frequently heard phrase in BDSM communities, and its roots are deeply entwined with a concern for ethics and, more to the point, fair play.​

Safe means that even when we play hard, we avoid causing true harm.​

Sane means folks don't play when they're angry, intoxicated, or otherwise not fully able to determine boundaries, and evaluate risk.​

Consensual means that players in a scene have provided each other with knowledgeable and informed consent, and that every participant has the right to stop the scene at any time through use of a safeword or other pre-designated means.​

More recently, a different "standard" - RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink) - has arisen. Its rationale was originated and defined by Gary Switch, a contributing editor to Prometheus magazine, as follows:

During a discussion of SSC (Safe, Sane, and Consensual) on the TES-Friends list, I proposed RACK (Risk-Aware, Consensual Kink) as an alternative. Here's my motivation: Nothing's perfectly safe. Crossing the street isn't perfectly safe. Remember that it's technically called "safer sex," not "safe sex."​

If we want to limit BDSM to what's safe, we can't do anything more extreme than flogging somebody with a wet noodle. Mountain climbers don't call their sport safe, for the simple reason that it isn't; risk is an essential part of the thrill. They handle it by identifying and minimizing the risk through study, training, technique, and practice.​

I believe that this approach will work better for us leatherfolk than claiming that what we do is safe. We want to foster the notion that we develop expertise, that to do what we do properly takes skill developed through a similar process of education, training, and practice.​

Negotiation cannot be valid without foreknowledge of the possible risks involved in the activity being negotiated. "Risk-aware" means that both parties to a negotiation have studied the proposed activities, are informed about the risks involved, and agree how they intend to handle them. Hence "risk-aware" instead of "safe."​

The "sane" part of SSC is very subjective. Who's making the call? Person A might think fisting is insane; persons B and C might enjoy it very much. "Sane" always reminds me of Pat Paulsen's campaign slogan from the old Smothers Brothers show: "Vote for Paulsen; he's not insane!" If you go around constantly reassuring folks that you're not crazy, they'll start to wonder. I've heard "sane" interpreted as: "able to distinguish fantasy from reality" and "not intoxicated," which are both perfectly valid, though the latter is similar to the above -- you don't go around constantly reassuring folks that you're not drunk, either.​

"Consensual" is the crux, implying negotiation which implies being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, as well as dealing responsibly with risk factors. If you don't know the risk factors, if you don't know what will happen in reality, then you don't know what you're consenting to. Meaningful negotiation must always take place on the common ground of consensus reality.​

The "kink" part went in to make a snappy acronym and because SSC doesn't tell you what you should be SSC about. Safe, Sane, and Consensual trout fishing?​

Alluding to the rack, an archetypal torture instrument, has been criticized, but to me it signifies our transformation of atrocity into ecstasy, and admits that though we may enjoy some dark fantasies, we realize them harmlessly.​

RACK is admittedly more confrontational than SSC. It's defiant, the same way the GLBT community uses "queer." RACK allows us the freedom to have non-PC fantasies. Don't a lot of us enjoy non-consensual fantasies, either from the top side or the bottom side? We enjoy them in our literature; we may very well enjoy them while we play.​

But we act them out responsibly and consensually.​

******
Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this essay, as long as it's reproduced in its entirety and is attributed to: Gary Switch, Contributing Editor, Prometheus magazine, GarySwitch@aol.com.

My personal preference is toward RACK. As a kind of "pushing it a bit" example, I know - and those who play with me know - that the use of a cane, crop or paddle, in particular, can (and most often will, when I'm wielding them) cause bruising. Bruising occurs when blood vessels beneath the skin are broken. The breaking of blood vessels beneath the skin can, on occasion, create blood clots, and blood clots can cause problems either in the bruised area, or in other parts of the body (like the heart or brain).

Since we both know this already, and we have agreed to act in a manner almost certain to create bruises, we are aware of the risk(s), and have consented to accept those risks as a part of the activity. As Gary Switch said, "Mountain climbers don't call their sport safe, for the simple reason that it isn't; risk is an essential part of the thrill. They handle it by identifying and minimizing the risk through study, training, technique, and practice."

What do you think? Which side of the SSC v. RACK discussion do you come down on? (And if you would identify yourself as male/female/other and PYL/pyl/sWiTcH , it might help to make things a little bit clearer - or more murky <shrug>.)

 

[intothewoods]

I bumped a thread...

 

[Ebonyfire]

I have called a moratorium on the acronyms and abbreviations associated with D/s and BDSM. I use the word negotiation. My relationships with submissives are negotiated on a one-to-one basis. Each area of the relationship is negotiated, including safety.

It works for Me and Mine.

Eb

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Well, ! How the heck did I miss a thread that recent? The senility must really be getting to me.

 

[shy slave]

Well, ! How the heck did I miss a thread that recent? The senility must really be getting to me.

*quietly zips mouth*

 

[Netzach]

I've always entered into slavery situations with a promise that I'll try my best to do nothing that puts you in
1. the hospital
2. the nuthouse

which leaves a lot of latitude for individuals, their needs, their tolerances, without setting up a lot of should and should nots for me. It's a nice, wide berth. It recognizes the value of the human, without getting overly sentimental about it or stupid about it, so that you are not allowing for needs that may override common wisdom about what's right and healthy.

I've also posted again and again about the origin of SSC and the cultural climate taking place at that time and the specificity of the generation of SSC. I have to say I find the ongoing slamming of the concept to have a tinge of homophobia about it, like the pansexual community can't wait to turn its back on this thing - it was generated as outreach BY gay leathermen FOR gay leathermen, trying to inject safety and responsibility into a scene beset by drugs, AIDS, and lack of respect and care for one another. Yeah, it's not hot. Yeah it took some of the "hot" out of play - so did reckless injuries and disease. I still stand by the notion as a sense of what it is that makes one kind of violence acceptable and one kind of violence abhorrent. (Like, in reality, not in terms of concepts of fantasies or how you want to build your personal world, but in a public social sense)

 

[Evil_Geoff]

*chuckles* No need to re-invent the wheel. I said what I had to say in the other thread...

 

[neonflux]

My personal preference is toward RACK. As a kind of "pushing it a bit" example, I know - and those who play with me know - that the use of a cane, crop or paddle, in particular, can (and most often will, when I'm wielding them) cause bruising. Bruising occurs when blood vessels beneath the skin are broken. The breaking of blood vessels beneath the skin can, on occasion, create blood clots, and blood clots can cause problems either in the bruised area, or in other parts of the body (like the heart or brain).

Since we both know this already, and we have agreed to act in a manner almost certain to create bruises, we are aware of the risk(s), and have consented to accept those risks as a part of the activity. As Gary Switch said, "Mountain climbers don't call their sport safe, for the simple reason that it isn't; risk is an essential part of the thrill. They handle it by identifying and minimizing the risk through study, training, technique, and practice."

What do you think? Which side of the SSC v. RACK discussion do you come down on? (And if you would identify yourself as male/female/other and PYL/pyl/sWiTcH , it might help to make things a little bit clearer - or more murky <shrug>.)

I was not - BDSM infant that I am - aware of this controversy so thank you for both this thread and the other that ITW bumped. If, as EG suggested in the other thread, that SSC was devised purely as a PR ploy, then it all comes down to image. The most interesting question here then, is how do we present ourselves to others? While I in part identify as queer because of its "in-your-face" confrontational and unapologetic attitude and its inclusiveness, I often use LGBT when in professional situations because I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable. Safe-Sane-Consensual is easier to understand for an outsider - then again, I don't know that anything we do will make the outside world feel comfortable with our sexual expression until they become comfortable with their own sexuality (and we're a long way from that), so this may be a moot point.

But I very much appreciated Netzach's history lesson.. I think the terms are more than a soundbite. As others have already said, they provide a grounding philosophy for what it is that we do, an especially important one for those who are new to the scene. This philosophy is one of the characteristics of our play that most differentiates it from the "kinky things" that so-called vanilla folks do in their bedrooms - we bring to our activities an intentionality that lends itself to greater awareness, negotiation, consensuality. I don't see the two terms as mutually exclusive but rather complementary. SSC describes the parameters for our play, RACK is more process oriented, describing how we get there.

just my 2¢
Neon

 

[JMohegan]

If, as EG suggested in the other thread, that SSC was devised purely as a PR ploy, then it all comes down to image. The most interesting question here then, is how do we present ourselves to others? While I in part identify as queer because of its "in-your-face" confrontational and unapologetic attitude and its inclusiveness, I often use LGBT when in professional situations because I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable. Safe-Sane-Consensual is easier to understand for an outsider - then again, I don't know that anything we do will make the outside world feel comfortable with our sexual expression until they become comfortable with their own sexuality (and we're a long way from that), so this may be a moot point.

But I very much appreciated Netzach's history lesson.. I think the terms are more than a soundbite. As others have already said, they provide a grounding philosophy for what it is that we do, an especially important one for those who are new to the scene. This philosophy is one of the characteristics of our play that most differentiates it from the "kinky things" that so-called vanilla folks do in their bedrooms - we bring to our activities an intentionality that lends itself to greater awareness, negotiation, consensuality.

Neon,

The phrase was not devised purely as a PR ploy and the origin had absolutely nothing to do with an attempt to assert philosophical superiority over "vanilla folks". Read this post to understand the purpose in historical context.

The last part of the stein quote sums it up nicely:

"Therefore, rather than saying, 'This is what S/M is, and it’s okay, nothing to be worried about,' the GMSMA statement of purpose said, in effect,'This is the kind of S/M we stand for and support. S/M can be damaging, crazy, or coercive, but it doesn’t have to be, and together we’re going to learn how to tell the difference.'

If someone was deliberately careless or irresponsible, or broke agreements about limits, we didn’t say, 'He’s not doing S/M' but rather, 'He’s not doing the kind of S/M we can support."

Netzach did a really nice job describing what the environment was like for the gay community at the time. My personal perspective on the SSC phrase from that era may be found here.

I've also posted again and again about the origin of SSC and the cultural climate taking place at that time and the specificity of the generation of SSC. I have to say I find the ongoing slamming of the concept to have a tinge of homophobia about it, like the pansexual community can't wait to turn its back on this thing - it was generated as outreach BY gay leathermen FOR gay leathermen, trying to inject safety and responsibility into a scene beset by drugs, AIDS, and lack of respect and care for one another. Yeah, it's not hot. Yeah it took some of the "hot" out of play - so did reckless injuries and disease. I still stand by the notion as a sense of what it is that makes one kind of violence acceptable and one kind of violence abhorrent. (Like, in reality, not in terms of concepts of fantasies or how you want to build your personal world, but in a public social sense)

In some cases, I'd say that your comment about the "tinge of homophobia" is a fair one - especially among hetero male Doms with a penchant for badass bravado.

But in many cases, it seems to me that ignorance of the history and a natural human tendency to take things for granted are to blame.

Maybe one had to be cognizant of kink before being cognizant of the phrase in order to really understand and appreciate the contribution made by stein and his peers that ultimately benefited all of us in really profound ways. I don't know. Like you, I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this subject.

But I'll be damned if I don't stand up and give credit where it's due.

 

[neonflux]

Neon,

The phrase was not devised purely as a PR ploy and the origin had absolutely nothing to do with an attempt to assert philosophical superiority over "vanilla folks". Read this post to understand the purpose in historical context.

JM, in rereading what I wrote, I can understand how someone might interpret my statement in the way you seem to have done, however I would never intentionally imply that the phrase was designed to assert superiority - I am queer and live in that world - most of what we do/say we do/say in our communities we do and say for ourselves. I understand (why I linked to Netzach's post) the importance of the guidelines those amazing men laid down NOT so long ago and I greatly appreciate your acknowledgment. (Odd historical sidenote: Netzach''s post reminded me that I was in Greenwich Village and talked to a man from the Gay Men's Health Crisis on the very day that they changed the name of GRID to AIDS. I have lost many, many friends to that epidemic - one of the reasons I've worked within the field of HIV Prevention for over 20 years now, often with a focus on queer male/trans youth).

I could have definitely articulated it better, but my reason for mentioning the difference with "vanilla" folk has to do with how I've seen people who are not part of the formal BDSM community and so are not grounded in the concept of SSC engage in some seemingly "mild" but potentially dangerous activities (hard spanking, bondage) without realizing the potential risks - and I admit to having been one of those individuals. It was certainly not meant as a disparagement - my SO is not kinky and our expressions of physical intimacy I hold as very precious. That said, we have carried the SSC concept into our own sexual exchanges as far as it applies and I see that as a good thing.

Re: the attempt to "discount" the SSC concept, there is something that does worry me - there is a small but growing contingent of primary straight male doms (many of them prominent PYLs) in the San Francisco scene who assert that a sub's wishes, desires, emotions don't count in the equation at all - this is not a dismissal of SSC as an "old" or "outdated" concept, it seems to completely throw out all but the concern for physical safety. Many (the most "Alpha" and skilled) have a bevy of women subs who follow them around like little puppy dogs (a friend of mine who is usually a pain weenie included). Perhaps it shouldn't, but it all disturbs me greatly.

Neon

 

[Netzach]

Re: the attempt to "discount" the SSC concept, there is something that does worry me - there is a small but growing contingent of primary straight male doms (many of them prominent PYLs) in the San Francisco scene who assert that a sub's wishes, desires, emotions don't count in the equation at all - this is not a dismissal of SSC as an "old" or "outdated" concept, it seems to completely throw out all but the concern for physical safety. Many (the most "Alpha" and skilled) have a bevy of women subs who follow them around like little puppy dogs (a friend of mine who is usually a pain weenie included). Perhaps it shouldn't, but it all disturbs me greatly.

Neon

Well my slaves can't expect that they do swing a lot of weight with me.

However, I'm very capable of realizing that my personal standards and goals do not a prescriptive philosophy make. The tip of MY dick doesn't have to define BDSM for anyone else.

I guess to me it's important to allow for the informed and one sided relationship, but to also recognize that this is a small and non-definitive subset of a much larger world and doesn't fit all.

 

[JMohegan]

I could have definitely articulated it better, but my reason for mentioning the difference with "vanilla" folk has to do with how I've seen people who are not part of the formal BDSM community and so are not grounded in the concept of SSC engage in some seemingly "mild" but potentially dangerous activities (hard spanking, bondage) without realizing the potential risks - and I admit to having been one of those individuals. It was certainly not meant as a disparagement - my SO is not kinky and our expressions of physical intimacy I hold as very precious. That said, we have carried the SSC concept into our own sexual exchanges as far as it applies and I see that as a good thing.

Neon, thanks for clarifying your intent.

I have never considered myself to be part of the "formal BDSM community", and perhaps that will explain our different perspectives. My response to your comments quoted here is to say:

1 - Per my definition, kinky folk are people who do kinky things and "vanilla folk" are people who do not do kinky things. Therefore, in my opinion anyone engaging in consensual "hard spanking, bondage" etc. is kinky - regardless of whether or not they are "grounded in the concept of SSC". And some clearly are not "grounded" in this way.

2 - There are many non-kinky people (like your SO) who openly discuss, embrace, and practice the essence of the Safe, Sane, Consensual concept - even if they do not use those exact words to describe it, and even if they are not in a relationship with an otherwise kinky person (such as yourself). The only difference in these situations is the flavor of sexuality to which the essence of the SSC concept is applied.

Taking points 1 & 2 together, what I'm trying to say is that I do not see a material distinction between the kinky and non-kinky worlds when it comes to the essence of the SSC concept.

Re: the attempt to "discount" the SSC concept, there is something that does worry me - there is a small but growing contingent of primary straight male doms (many of them prominent PYLs) in the San Francisco scene who assert that a sub's wishes, desires, emotions don't count in the equation at all - this is not a dismissal of SSC as an "old" or "outdated" concept, it seems to completely throw out all but the concern for physical safety. Many (the most "Alpha" and skilled) have a bevy of women subs who follow them around like little puppy dogs (a friend of mine who is usually a pain weenie included). Perhaps it shouldn't, but it all disturbs me greatly.

Assuming that the arrangements are made between informed & consenting adults, I can only conclude that the wishes & desires of the subs in question are fulfilled by the overall dynamic itself.

Personally, I expect a partner to defer to my preferences, desires, and will as often as I see fit to demand such deference. That's the essence of the D/s commitment, as far as I'm concerned.

However, if the arrangement itself and my behavior in particular aren't making my partner happy & satisfied more often than not, I sure as heck wouldn't expect her to stick around!

Further, I'll note that I consider keen awareness of a partner's desires, wishes & emotions to be critical to my ability to control her in an effective way. If I don't understand what makes her tick, I'm just not going to be able to take her very far.

 

[MechaBlade]

I don't see why we can't use both.

I've always entered into slavery situations with a promise that I'll try my best to do nothing that puts you in
1. the hospital
2. the nuthouse

3. Jail (my personal addition)

 

[neonflux]

Well my slaves can't expect that they do swing a lot of weight with me.

I am clearly not expressing myself clearly in this thread. I am assuming that they can expect you have concern for their psychological as well as their physical welfare? The people in question basically don't believe that the sub's state beyond the physical counts. They don't believe in safe words, they don't care about the sub's feelings. They espouse this not only within the context of a 24/7 for otherwise ongoing "full power exchange" relationship where there is some compact of commitment. They espouse this even within the context of a one-time scene, where they may or may not know their sub well enough to know how much she (these folks are in the main hetero men) can take. I understand that the women are consenting, but it still seems to me that when a PYL takes on that power, it carries with it a certain obligation.

I read your post in the last thread thoroughly and I very much appreciated it. I have a dear friend who has been a Leatherman since those early days (one of the lucky ones who has survived 20+ years of being HIV-positive). I consider him something of a mentor - we were talking once about psychological safety and he told a story from those days of "assisting" a well respected Top at a play party - the Top was working 5 subs at once and just did not recognize when one of them - a young man who was new to SF and new to the scene - broke. He just broke psychologically and the Top in charge didn't realize it until it was too late - it took my friend 3 days of nurturing to help the boy "put himself together" again.

However, I'm very capable of realizing that my personal standards and goals do not a prescriptive philosophy make. The tip of MY dick doesn't have to define BDSM for anyone else.

Not sure what you meant by the second paragraph???

I guess to me it's important to allow for the informed and one sided relationship, but to also recognize that this is a small and non-definitive subset of a much larger world and doesn't fit all.

To be fair, I don't know how these men play - the public scene here is large enough to have lots of "subsets" and I don't travel in those circles. My understanding is that they are actually very nice people. I suspect that what they espouse is tinged with bravado and that they are more careful than they claim to be or women wouldn't continue to want to play with them. ADDITION: But the idea that we can dispense with grounding philosophies like SSC or RACK makes me nervous.

Neon

 

[Netzach]

I am clearly not expressing myself clearly in this thread. I am assuming that they can expect you have concern for their psychological as well as their physical welfare? The people in question basically don't believe that the sub's state beyond the physical counts. They don't believe in safe words, they don't care about the sub's feelings. They espouse this not only within the context of a 24/7 for otherwise ongoing "full power exchange" relationship where there is some compact of commitment. They espouse this even within the context of a one-time scene, where they may or may not know their sub well enough to know how much she (these folks are in the main hetero men) can take. I understand that the women are consenting, but it still seems to me that when a PYL takes on that power, it carries with it a certain obligation.

I read your post in the last thread thoroughly and I very much appreciated it. I have a dear friend who has been a Leatherman since those early days (one of the lucky ones who has survived 20+ years of being HIV-positive). I consider him something of a mentor - we were talking once about psychological safety and he told a story from those days of "assisting" a well respected Top at a play party - the Top was working 5 subs at once and just did not recognize when one of them - a young man who was new to SF and new to the scene - broke. He just broke psychologically and the Top in charge didn't realize it until it was too late - it took my friend 3 days of nurturing to help the boy "put himself together" again.

Not sure what you meant by the second paragraph???

To be fair, I don't know how these men play - the public scene here is large enough to have lots of "subsets" and I don't travel in those circles. My understanding is that they are actually very nice people. I suspect that what they espouse is tinged with bravado and that they are more careful than they claim to be or women wouldn't continue to want to play with them. ADDITION: But the idea that we can dispense with grounding philosophies like SSC or RACK makes me nervous.

Neon

I should have taken more time, I'm afraid I'm the one being unlcear.

I feel that if someone is interested in a slave relationship with me, they are, by and large, as responsible for their own safety as I am - in fact in some ways even more so. By being aware of the fact that they no longer know precisely what to expect from me, and therefore are in a position of relying completely in how they know me to be.

If there's any doubt that I'm competent, ethical, and secure enough to not fuck you up in ways not intended, then you are not ready to be my property.

While stories of meltdowns are unfortunate, I always find myself as an owner wondering what that person did to protect himself/herself, if it was made clear to them what might occur but they blissfully decided to assume the Top is bluffing in a desire to impress or get closer to them...that's not to say the Top wasn't totally irresponsible in your story, but it's not enough to know that there was a meltdown and assume it's all the Top's fault. Did that person know it was a multi-party scene, did they know they'd not have full attention and might have to take responsibility for the extremes of their reactions? I could break it down, but it's pointless - you've got more info than I do, and it's entirely possible that Top WAS just a dick.

I have been in emotionally sadomasochistic relationships where I *did not* care about the reactions, misgivings, feelings, or wants of the bottom. The bottom would have it no other way, ironically. Nor would I. It's not a form of SM most people care to dabble in, nor is it necessarily healthy for the vast majority of people. For those for whom it IS cathartic to really be denigrated and objectified to this level, I don't want to see that option being taken off the table.

Hence - I will do my best to keep you out of the hospital and out of shrink ER. That is all.

But the second part of what I was saying is that the good or ill of this kind of scene, as far as I know, starts and stops with me. I would not advocate this kind of emotional SM as "real" "true" "better" or "more hardcore" in any way any more than I would say that about scat - another potentially harmful, noxious and generally considered very weird SM activity, even by those in SM. While I'm an emotional brutality junkie to a degree, my appreciation begins and ends with my own doings and I don't try to cultivate a bevy, a club, or anything like that saying "this is how to do it."

 

[Evil_Geoff]

... If, as EG suggested in the other thread, that SSC was devised purely as a PR ploy...

Hi neon,

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that SSC was devised as a PR ploy. I was explicitly saying that it has become one through over-use and over-simplification. Like anything that gets used to the point of cliche, there was truth and usefulness in it at one point. We've hit the point of diminishing returns with SSC.

RACK was coined because someone wanted to make what we do seem edgier, more exotic, more dangerous than SSC. Safe? What's fun about SAFE? We want crazy risks like BASE jumping! WOO! Okay, whatever...

Use the phrase that makes you happy, use both, use neither. In the end they are trying to do the same thing. Sell BDSM as being not so bad.

 

[neonflux]

Neon, thanks for clarifying your intent.

I have never considered myself to be part of the "formal BDSM community", and perhaps that will explain our different perspectives. My response to your comments quoted here is to say:

1 - Per my definition, kinky folk are people who do kinky things and "vanilla folk" are people who do not do kinky things. Therefore, in my opinion anyone engaging in consensual "hard spanking, bondage" etc. is kinky - regardless of whether or not they are "grounded in the concept of SSC". And some clearly are not "grounded" in this way.

2 - There are many non-kinky people (like your SO) who openly discuss, embrace, and practice the essence of the Safe, Sane, Consensual concept - even if they do not use those exact words to describe it, and even if they are not in a relationship with an otherwise kinky person (such as yourself). The only difference in these situations is the flavor of sexuality to which the essence of the SSC concept is applied.

Taking points 1 & 2 together, what I'm trying to say is that I do not see a material distinction between the kinky and non-kinky worlds when it comes to the essence of the SSC concept.

You and I are in agreement that SSC can apply across "subcultures." In fact, I wish it did - I think that it carries with it a "deep ethics" for all of its simplicity. Your point is taken in terms of your definitions of kinky and non-kinky. For myself, I separate it out as my "formal" and "informal" exploration of my kink.

When you say that you are not part of the "community," is this because you found much of your initial way alone, or because you don't go to munches, play in public, etc.? I am not sure that I would agree with you, if only because you post here, where you play the role of teacher/mentor, and in finding your way, if I have gathered correctly from the body of your posts on this forum, you searched out information that came from "organized communities" to help you both come to terms with your sexual nature and to learn how to express it safely... I think that this (BDSM) is an excruciatingly beautiful path (pun intended) - I also think it is an exceedingly difficult one to do in complete isolation, for many many reasons. Even if the contact is only through readings, that contact is still important, it seems to me.

Assuming that the arrangements are made between informed & consenting adults, I can only conclude that the wishes & desires of the subs in question are fulfilled by the overall dynamic itself.

Personally, I expect a partner to defer to my preferences, desires, and will as often as I see fit to demand such deference. That's the essence of the D/s commitment, as far as I'm concerned.

However, if the arrangement itself and my behavior in particular aren't making my partner happy & satisfied more often than not, I sure as heck wouldn't expect her to stick around!

I would hazzard a guess (and I know the dangers of ass-uming) that you also care for her well-being? Psychological as well as physical? And that you also hope that in the end your relationship with her builds her up rather than not caring whether it does that or tears her down? I never meant to suggest that a Dom/me shouldn't take what s/he wants or that her/his desires shouldn't be paramount. Even in my newbiness, I know that there are all sorts of Tops and bottoms, subs and Dom/mes, Masters and slaves.

When I had my cleansing, there were no safewords, and the Dom who did it definitely knew exactly how far to push without ever going too far (that said, he went very far and it was necessary). But then, we also had a good friendship before that, he does believe in the principles of SSC, and even though there was a great deal of S/m, we crafted the experience together to build me up psychologically from beginning to end...

I am beginning to play with more people, pretty much exclusively as a Top right now. Certainly, when I Top, none of my "play personas" is particularly service-oriented. I want to know what my bottom's fantasies and desires are - they are a key to her/his psyche and the energy exchange is far more exhilarating and satisfying if s/he is getting pleasure from the experience - but I decide which of those specific desires I will address and how and when - usually not as s/he probably expects (unless it's a reward - I am pretty generous).

I think the thing that concerns me about what these folks are suggesting is that ultimately, there is / should be no concern for the psychological well-being of the pyl. That seems to be the final implication and end result if their philosophy were carried to its ultimate conclusion. It strikes me as a complete repudiation of SSC and even the broader parameters of RACK.

Further, I'll note that I consider keen awareness of a partner's desires, wishes & emotions to be critical to my ability to control her in an effective way. If I don't understand what makes her tick, I'm just not going to be able to take her very far.

Doesn't it go further than that, though? My sister (an academic and one of the smartest women I've ever known) talks about wanting to be totally erased, to have her will stripped from her within a sexual encounter. The person who accepts this from her and in so doing claims such power has an awesome responsibility, as far as I'm concerned. I love her. I respect her desire. However, I would shudder were she to give herself so fully to someone who ultimately didn't care about bringing her back from that state. Somehow, I cannot imagine you also not taking care of someone who offered herself to you in this way. (And I cannot see the PLYs whom I respect ever not wanting to do so, regardless of how deep their sadistic streak goes...)

Neon

 

[neonflux]

Hi neon,

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that SSC was devised as a PR ploy. I was explicitly saying that it has become one through over-use and over-simplification. Like anything that gets used to the point of cliche, there was truth and usefulness in it at one point. We've hit the point of diminishing returns with SSC.

RACK was coined because someone wanted to make what we do seem edgier, more exotic, more dangerous than SSC. Safe? What's fun about SAFE? We want crazy risks like BASE jumping! WOO! Okay, whatever...

Use the phrase that makes you happy, use both, use neither. In the end they are trying to do the same thing. Sell BDSM as being not so bad.

Thank you for the clarification and I'm sorry that I misunderstood. Why do you feel that SSC has diminishing returns? I see it as such a deeply ethical philosophy for everyone, not just folks into BDSM. Re: RACK, i understand the attraction to edge, the two terms seem to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive, if that makes sense? BASE Jumping? I like my risks more measured - bungee jumping anyone? Neon

P.S., left you a belated b-day card

 

[JMohegan]

When you say that you are not part of the "community," is this because you found much of your initial way alone, or because you don't go to munches, play in public, etc.? I am not sure that I would agree with you, if only because you post here, where you play the role of teacher/mentor, and in finding your way, if I have gathered correctly from the body of your posts on this forum, you searched out information that came from "organized communities" to help you both come to terms with your sexual nature and to learn how to express it safely... I think that this (BDSM) is an excruciatingly beautiful path (pun intended) - I also think it is an exceedingly difficult one to do in complete isolation, for many many reasons. Even if the contact is only through readings, that contact is still important, it seems to me.

I said I do not consider myself to be part of the "formal BDSM community".

What I meant was that I do not officially belong to any clubs or organized groups, do not embrace any particular protocol or culture, and have not been trained in the lifestyle or D/s (beyond occasional enrollment in random workshops on bondage or use of a particular tool).

I guess you could call me a freelance sort of a guy. I have always drawn support from peers - that's true. But the people whom I know best are almost all freelance too.

I would hazzard a guess (and I know the dangers of ass-uming) that you also care for her well-being? Psychological as well as physical? And that you also hope that in the end your relationship with her builds her up rather than not caring whether it does that or tears her down?

I never meant to suggest that a Dom/me shouldn't take what s/he wants or that her/his desires shouldn't be paramount. Even in my newbiness, I know that there are all sorts of Tops and bottoms, subs and Dom/mes, Masters and slaves.

When I had my cleansing, there were no safewords, and the Dom who did it definitely knew exactly how far to push without ever going too far (that said, he went very far and it was necessary). But then, we also had a good friendship before that, he does believe in the principles of SSC, and even though there was a great deal of S/m, we crafted the experience together to build me up psychologically from beginning to end...

I am beginning to play with more people, pretty much exclusively as a Top right now. Certainly, when I Top, none of my "play personas" is particularly service-oriented. I want to know what my bottom's fantasies and desires are - they are a key to her/his psyche and the energy exchange is far more exhilarating and satisfying if s/he is getting pleasure from the experience - but I decide which of those specific desires I will address and how and when - usually not as s/he probably expects (unless it's a reward - I am pretty generous).

The answer to your questions in the first paragraph is yes, of course! I was offering my perspective as a far less extreme version of what you had described.

By the way, Neon - if you are interested, I would be fascinated to read a post (perhaps on a different thread) on the subject of your "cleansing".

What does that mean, in the context of your experience? Was it part of a longer educational process, and if so what was the progression of stages before and after? How would you describe the organization that teaches this process? And what justification/rationale do they give for playing without a safeword? How long did you know the Dom you played with before allowing him to cleanse you, and what experiences or process in generating trust made you so confident in his care?

No rush, obviously. Whenever you have time, I am curious to hear what you have to say.

I think the thing that concerns me about what these folks are suggesting is that ultimately, there is / should be no concern for the psychological well-being of the pyl. That seems to be the final implication and end result if their philosophy were carried to its ultimate conclusion. It strikes me as a complete repudiation of SSC and even the broader parameters of RACK.

I am predominantly a physical sadist, not an emotional one. So I'll defer to Netzach's answer on this topic.

 

[neonflux]

I said I do not consider myself to be part of the "formal BDSM community".

What I meant was that I do not officially belong to any clubs or organized groups, do not embrace any particular protocol or culture, and have not been trained in the lifestyle or D/s (beyond occasional enrollment in random workshops on bondage or use of a particular tool).

I guess you could call me a freelance sort of a guy. I have always drawn support from peers - that's true. But the people whom I know best are almost all freelance too.

Thank you for the clarification. I have always seen you as so generous, it is hard to imagine you in complete isolation. I DO understand the loner thing...

I will post this, as per your request, in my "catharsis" thread.

I am predominantly a physical sadist, not an emotional one. So I'll defer to Netzach's answer on this topic.

Well then, I am indeed in good company

Neon

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Why do you feel that SSC has diminishing returns? I see it as such a deeply ethical philosophy for everyone, not just folks into BDSM. Re: RACK, i understand the attraction to edge, the two terms seem to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive, if that makes sense?

SSC has reached the point of diminishing returns because it is rarely used as a jumping off point for discussion about what differentiates BDSM from abuse, it's used as a mantra, as if repeating Safe, Sane, Consentual over and over again make someone qualified or sanctified or blessed or something.

SSC has become the philosophy for many, without their having any underlying understanding of where the concept comes from and why it was revolutionary.

People spout off about SSC, like safecalls or safewords, as if the letters or words will magically protect them. They are clueless... hollering "He's not SSC!" Or "she doesn't practice SSC!" when in fact _they_ themselves are the ones who aren't "SSC" because they haven't bothered to take responsbility for themselves and their own safety...

It's a concept, an idea, a tool that we can use. Useful and good when used wisely, SSC is worse than useless when used as a bludgeon, or a crutch and shortcut to replace critical, constructive, thinking.

But that doesn't make RACK any better (or worse), it's just a different way to get the idea across.

 

[neonflux]

SSC has reached the point of diminishing returns because it is rarely used as a jumping off point for discussion about what differentiates BDSM from abuse, it's used as a mantra, as if repeating Safe, Sane, Consentual over and over again make someone qualified or sanctified or blessed or something.

SSC has become the philosophy for many, without their having any underlying understanding of where the concept comes from and why it was revolutionary.

People spout off about SSC, like safecalls or safewords, as if the letters or words will magically protect them. They are clueless... hollering "He's not SSC!" Or "she doesn't practice SSC!" when in fact _they_ themselves are the ones who aren't "SSC" because they haven't bothered to take responsbility for themselves and their own safety...

It's a concept, an idea, a tool that we can use. Useful and good when used wisely, SSC is worse than useless when used as a bludgeon, or a crutch and shortcut to replace critical, constructive, thinking.

But that doesn't make RACK any better (or worse), it's just a different way to get the idea across.

In light of that, I can also understand the benifit of using RACK, because it is so much more specific in terms of the "how" Thank you. Neon